TRIAL CHAMBER II of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("International Tribunal"),

BEING SEISED of a confidential motion1 filed by the
Defence for Dr. Stakic ("Defence") on 3 July 2002, seeking an order from the
Trial Chamber to exclude in its entirety the "opinion testimony" of a witness
for the Office of the Prosecutor, Mevludin Sejmenovic, who testified in this
case from 12 Ė 24 June 2002 and from 1 Ė2 July 2002, on the grounds that the
Defence has been prejudiced by the failure on behalf of the Office of the Prosecutor
("Prosecution") to identify Mr. Sejmenovicís as an expert witness and disclose
his expert opinion in a timely fashion,

NOTING the confidential response2 filed by the Prosecution on 8 July 2002,

RECALLING the Order of this Trial Chamber in relation to the filing of motions in which it was stated that "no written motion may be filed on a Ďconfidentialí basis unless the Pre-Trial Judge or another Judge of the Trial Chamber grants leave for it to be so filed"3,

the Prosecution has failed to comply with its obligation under Rule 94
bis of the Rules to disclose the statement of Mr. Sejmenovic, as an expert
witness, to the Defence prior to the presentation of his testimony;

the late disclosure of a signed statement by Mr. Sejmenovic prejudiced the
Defenceís ability to prepare the cross-examination of this witness;

the Prosecutionís tactic of eliciting opinion testimony from a fact witness
prejudices the accused by: (i) preventing him from being advised of the charges
against him; (ii) allowing the Prosecution to bypass the procedural requirements
of establishing a witnessís credentials before eliciting expert testimony
from him; (iii) violating the principle of the equality of arms by not allowing
the Defence adequate time to prepare the cross-examination of a fact witness
who provides opinion testimony, including the ability of counsel to consult
with the accused prior to the cross-examination;

certain efforts made on behalf of the Prosecution in relation to this witnessís
personal circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of this witness,

NOTING that the Defence in its motion has requested the Trial Chamber
to "enter an order striking and excluding in its entirety from the evidence
and the record the opinion testimony introduced by the Office of the Prosecutor
through Mevludin Sejmenovic"4,

NOTING FURTHER that the Defence in its motion has also requested the
Trial Chamber to strike or exclude from the evidence and the record "any other
improperly disclosed or undisclosed testimony"5,

NOTING the arguments of the Prosecution that:

the Defence has not specified which parts of Mr. Sejmenovicís testimony
it seeks to have excluded;

Mr. Sejmenovic did not testify as an "expert" witness; rather he was asked
to comment on certain documents based upon his factual knowledge of events;

the late disclosure of a short statement signed by Mr. Sejmenovic could
not have prejudiced the ability of the Defence to prepare the cross-examination
for this witness when it already had access to the witnessís testimony in
three other cases before the Tribunal, as well as a statement of the accused
from October 2000;

the Prosecution disclosed the areas about which Mr. Sejmenovicís would provide
testimony in its Rule 65 ter submission;

the "assistance" provided to this witness by the Prosecution is only relevant
if the Defence are alleging that Mr. Sejmenovic changed his testimony on that
basis; no such allegation has been made by the Defence and, there is no indication,
based on previous testimony given by this witness, that he has done so,

NOTING this Trial Chamberís Order on the Standards Governing the Admission
of Evidence in this case6, and, in particular, paragraph 1 which reads: "SpCarties
should always bear in mind the basic distinction that exists between the admissibility
of documentary evidence and the weight that documentary evidence is given under
the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The practice will be, therefore,
in favour of admissibility as the rule",

CONSIDERING that the standards set forth in this Trial Chamberís Order
on the admission of evidence in this case apply equally to the admission of
testimonial evidence,

CONSIDERING, therefore, that the mere admission of testimonial evidence
in this case is no indication of the final weight the Trial Chamber will give
to such evidence,

CONSIDERING that Mr. Sejmenovic testified at trial about matters within
the scope of his personal knowledge of events in the Prijedor municipality in
1992,

CONSIDERING, therefore, that Mr. Sejmenovicís testimony cannot be considered
to be that of an "expert witness" within the meaning of Rule 94 bis of
the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal, applicable
only for an expert in the narrow sense, i.e. "SaC person who, through education
or experience, has developed skill or knowledge in a particular subject, so
that he or she may form an opinion that will assist the fact-finder"7,

CONSIDERING that the Defence has withdrawn its former motion filed pursuant
to Rule 95 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal,

CONSIDERING that it ultimately falls to the Trial Chamber to determine,
in light of all the relevant factors, the probative value of Mr. Sejmenovicís
evidence in this case,

CONSIDERING that the term "any other improperly disclosed or undisclosed
testimony"8 is too vague a basis on which to make a decision,

HEREBY FINDS no grounds for excluding testimony provided in this case
to date, and DENIES the Defence motion of 3 July 2002 accordingly.

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.